Free Traffic Legal Advice

Wow!!
Thanks!
Is the attachment all correct? (With alias)

The only thing you need to concern yourself as the named defendant is to do exactly what I have advised.

You look like you have a sense of humour: I will not be guilty of arguing with your instructions lest I fall into Twains trap

(Attachment Link)

APPEAL:

You completed the appeal on 01/10/2024

I wrote to the claimant that at the time of parking there were works being done on the road outside parking lot. This created an awful traffic jam WITHIN the car park where there was literally no way to move for ages. In effect we were locked in and are being given a pcn for that. The rules of parking do not require me to fly out. I further wrote that can confirm with the bank the TIME of transaction for shopping that was done at the shopping centre there. They can easily check CCTV to prove my point and also other people must have been charged. I was shocked with their reply: they did not even read!! my appeal just sent me a ready made template rejecting it!!
They should also explain what they will do about other people who have received pcn at the same time


The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 08/10/2024

The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 22/08/2024.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 22/08/2024.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...
This is not a relevant consideration as the motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd, so have agreed to pay.

The signs advertising the terms and conditions of the car park are compliant with our Approved Operator Scheme and displayed in prominent locations throughout the car park.

The motorist entered into a contract with G24 Ltd to park within the permitted free parking of 120 minutes and the motorist parking period was for 189 minutes therefore the CPCN still applies.

It is for the above reasons that the appeal was rejected.

The appellant made their response on 10/10/2024

The operator is suggesting that the legal contract requires me to move my car without a physical ability to get out i.e. the operator would be happy to lock the car park gates and then charge the cars for not going out. It is the requirement of the operator to ensure access and exit are POSSIBLE.
I further reiterate that the operator should cancel any other claims made under the same circumstances


The adjudicator made their decision on 19/10/2024
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
The signage at this site is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms; there is a maximum stay allowed of 120 minutes.
The Appellant's vehicle was recorded as remaining on site for 189 minutes.
Any reasons given by the Appellant for the overstay may amount to mitigation, which the operator has duly considered. If the operator felt that the mitigation warranted it, they could have withdrawn the Parking Charge. They have chosen not to do so.
As stated above, as adjudicator I am only able to consider legal argument. The Appellant in this case has no legal argument.
Having considered all the relevant issues raised, I am satisfied that the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]